The Greens and their supporters face a moral dilemma in the Kimberley where environmental concerns are in conflict with Aboriginal self-determination.

Since James Price Point, just north of Broome in northern Western Australia, was selected as the State Government's preferred location for a gas precinct, environmentalists have waged war on behalf of threatened species, dinosaur footprints and Aboriginal heritage. But when a majority of native title claimants voted for the industry to proceed, the environmental movement faced a tough decision.

While touring the waters off James Price Point on board anti-whaling vessel, 'Steve Irwin', former Greens leader, Bob Brown, is upfront about his position, stating the obvious that, "Yes, I'm an environmentalist".

Dr Brown accepts that he is at odds with the majority of the Goolarbooloo/Jabirr Jabirr claim group who want the LNG processing facility to proceed.

He points out that as a former Green in the Federal parliament he's no stranger to going against the majority.

"I was there because we had a minority point of view and it was an important one."

Bob Brown's attitude cuts through a dilemma local environmentalist have wrestled with as the Kimberley gas issue has evolved and developed over the years.

Back in 2007 before James Price Point had been selected for a gas precinct, five major environmental groups signed a joint position statement with the Kimberley Land Council committing to "ensuring that the approach taken to LNG-related development in the Kimberley is inclusive of Kimberley Traditional Owners."

At this time the Labor Government's policy allowed an Indigenous veto on a gas processing facility in the Kimberley. This put environmentalists in an awkward position. It seemed that to oppose a Kimberley gas development carried an unacceptable catch for many environmentalists of ignoring the wishes of traditional owners.

Premier Barnett changed this landscape when he first threatened and then instigated compulsory acquisition of the land at James Price Point following his election in 2008. Compulsory acquisition splintered native title claimants and created outspoken Aboriginal opponents to gas processing at the site north of Broome. Having Aboriginal allies allowed environmentalist to comfortably shift their goal from imposing conditions on a Kimberley LNG industry, to trying to stop any gas facilities on the Kimberley coast at all.

In May 2011, the moral dilemma for environmentalists became more complicated again when a majority of native title claimants for the James Price Point area voted to support the gas development in return for a billion dollar plus compensation package.

Many environmentalists responded by rejecting the legitimacy of this decision and the majority who made it. But amidst numerous challenges, courts to date have upheld the process carried out under native title legislation by the Kimberley Land Council.

The developing rift between environmentalists and Aboriginal people who support the Kimberley gas industry has become more bitter over time. Like ex-lovers there seems to be real hurt between the former allies.

Addressing the National Press Club in July 2012, former Kimberley Land Council CEO Wayne Bergmann continued his attacks on the environmental movement.

"They value our culture only if we always say no to development. This attitude is an abandonment of their support for Aboriginal self-determination. This is wrong and insulting." Bergmann said.

It's part of the slow-burning story of native title. Twenty years after Eddie Mabo's posthumous victory, native title is starting to produce opportunities where Aboriginal people can have some real influence over what happens on their traditional country. When they want to preserve and conserve, environmentalists and the broader left instinctively stand in solidarity. But when Aboriginal people support industry and development then alliances are born that Australia is still coming to terms with.

More and more in places like Broome where black and green overlap, environmentalists will be faced with the reality that Aboriginal people have as diverse views as any other race. The left won't simply be able to point at the right with accusations of ignoring Aboriginal people. The accusations will fly in both directions.

To be at odds with Aboriginal people is a stinging accusation for many environmentalists, and sometimes the best response will be to simply say "Yes, I am an environmentalist."

The other Richo:

10 Aug 2012 5:18:05pm

And I remember Bob Brown one week fighting to "save" the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme (i.e. a lot of dams) from being sold to the public, and the very next week fighting to prevent the construction of a dam in Queensland. The first because of socialist ideals, the second for environmental ideals.

Peter the Lawyer:

I Remember:

10 Aug 2012 1:52:09pm

I well remember Bob Brown advocating the use of a coal-fired power station in Tasmania in preference to building a dam on the Franklin River. It always struck me as ill-informed given his environmental stance. When questioned about this on Q&A, Bob initially denied that he had ever suggested such a thing, but then was forced to admit he had done so when the questioner showed him the newspaper clipping. Brown then admitted he had been wrong to recommend the power station. So, even avuncular Bob can contradict himself.

Jez:

10 Aug 2012 2:27:35pm

Test your memory a little more. You are talking early eighties. There really wasn't a lot of research indicating the threats of burning fossil fuels at this time. Ignoring the impact of climate change would see a preference for coal power over flooding a large area of productive land.

He has admitted he was wrong as more pertinent evidence became available.

If you have trouble with flip flopping, don't bother voting at all. You have identified one instance, yet we could type all day if we were to mention all of the flip flops from the two majors.

It seems that you will hold a smaller party with less resources to a higher account than the two majors. Do you think that this is fair? I don't.

hairy nosed wombat:

10 Aug 2012 10:34:17am

Since when have the Greens had an interest in aboriginal self-determination? The Greens attitude to aborigines has always been somewhat reminisent to many 19th century naturalists - lock them up and preserve them for our viewing pleasure. They have never seen them as real independent beings no different to ourselves, but rather as just another part of the environment to be managed.

"The Greens attitude to aborigines has always been somewhat reminisent to many 19th century naturalists"

Bwah-hah-hah. Wrong again. The Coalition and Labour attitude to Aborigines is to perpetuate the disastrous neglect, paternalism and hostility towards self-determination that began in 1778. Of all the parties, only the Greens have real engagement in Aboriginal affairs.

The Greens are once again demonstrating that they are honest pragmatists. When faced with the dilemma of supporting compensation or an environmentally unsound project that simply adds to CO2 emissions, the Greens didn't hide, lie or spin as the Coalition and Labor consistently do. The Greens remained consistent and open in their opposition.

The suggestion that the Greens are somehow infringing on Aboriginal self-determination is hypocrisy, a lie and absurd spin. Shame on you.

Kay Gillard:

Craig Walters:

10 Aug 2012 1:07:43pm

Yes, I tend to agree ... and I'm very conscious that I am being quite paternalistic towards to the original landowners in holding this position.

Having said that, I think we can be sophisticated enough to realise that most people are vulnerable to making a short-term decision that is not in their best interest in the long-term. I'm sure I've done it many times myself.

When a company waves a fistful of dollars in your face and provides all kinds of assurances it would be hard to say no.

Yorker:

10 Aug 2012 10:40:47am

For the most part these environmentalists are terrible hypocrites. The only reason they've got the time and luxury of worrying about the environment is because of the enormous social and industrial infrastructure that has been built by the rest of the human race over 1000s of years. And yes, some trees were harmed during the making of this comment!

mark:

10 Aug 2012 12:17:34pm

yorker the industrial revolution commenced in 1807 in england one year later a famous poem was penned it was called paradise lost. You cannot eat coal but you do need air to breath and as trees are the lungs of the planet i suggest it would be a good idea to keep them.

Yorker:

No, I think we should make sensible and moderate choices that benefit humanity.

I do think we have a population problem, and that is the overwhelming cause of our environmental problems.

This small piece of desert is the least of our worries, but greenies don't choose to focus their efforts where it will make a difference, but rather where they get the warmest, fuzziest feeling of moral superiority.

MJLC:

10 Aug 2012 10:42:46am

The other dilemma that's sitting just off to one side is that the Dampier Peninsula (for reasons obvious to anyone who's been there) isn't a very easy place to take photographs that excite people into uncritical and uninformed responses. For the record, I don't support building anything at JPP - but for the reason of not wanting to see Broome turned into another heaving mess like Karratha or Port Hedland. Terrestrially, this isn't a place that is capable of tugging at the heartstrings like Kakadu or the Tarkine - unless you're someone who is very easily impressed, and it's a long way short of being "unique" and/or "precious" (in my opinion obviously). Senator Brown might find his task a bit easier if he chose to give the destruction of the vibe of Broome at least equal footing with his beloved dinosaur footprints.

Fiona:

10 Aug 2012 10:48:59am

This higlights one of the (many) problems The Greens have got themself into, soemhow tieing up enviromental policy with other ideas, let's call them, socially progressive.

If you primary conecern is protection of the environment (rightly or wrongly) then all other concerns come secondary. So, if you believe in protecting an area, then if the people who want to develop it are white or black or purple, should be completely irrelevant. The same context should be used to look at population growth, the FIRST priority should be 'what population can the country sustain'. The same with hunting, if an animal is endangered then no-one should be able to hunt it etc.

As the article says ' Aboriginal people have as diverse views as any other race'. The other perception, that ALL Aborigines will automatically be 'greenies' is simple, idealistic, patronising nonsense.

The Greens website says 'the Greens speak on behalf of those who wouldnt otherwise get much of a say inside parliament: children, refugees, students, individuals and families living in poverty and, of course, our natural environment.' They list environment last. Fair enough, but they are no longer a 'green' party, they should probably change their name.

Lean and Green:

The Greens are right about this. Aboriginal Australia has no more right to destroy this global environmental heritage than any other living member of the community.

Why is it that only the Greens care about this country?

The price of progress is destruction, if that means stopping this gas hub and leaving Aboriginal Australia with a title for being environmental vandals then so be it.

Do they not see more boats coming? Do they not understand that this patch of dirt belongs to all of us who live on this planet? No more claiming "Mother Earth" supremacy now, just another bunch of hypocrites like every other earth wrecker out there.

The Greens will not back down to them or allow them to believe they have more rights than us. We will continue to fight this at every step.

basil:

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 2:08:45pm

Interesting point.

It would be curious to see the Greens logically reconcile their Republican ideology - which denies that birthright should convey special privileges - with their simultaneous policy that privileges the spiritual connection of Aboriginal Australians to the land - also a special privilege conferred by birth.

Indeed, I would argue that a policy of non-racism is incompatible with simultaneously averring that two people born in the same place at the same time cannot have an equal relationship with the land of their birth, purely on a 'racial' basis.

libertarian:

10 Aug 2012 1:30:53pm

But hang on, the land is part of the earth and therefore our ancestors have owned it for far longer than 50,000 years. Good news everybody, it belongs to all of us equally. I knew I must have had ancestors. So where is my cut of the easy money?

Justn Fair:

The fact is that man destroyed the environment of this continent about 40,000 years ago, leading to permanent and complete extinction of most of the fauna and flora that existed then.

Nature always wins in the end and that end can mean the extinction of the human race if we aren't careful. We see the world in terms of what is in our best interests in the short term. Anything that isn't seen as to our advantage is called a pest or a weed.

disco:

10 Aug 2012 12:49:41pm

I always wonder if in a thousand years time, will some people look back and say "oh my thoes historic australians were so one with nature, look how the pidgeons, cats, rats and roaches lived in their cities"

Jez:

10 Aug 2012 2:42:31pm

Exactly. We don't compromise, others can push for environmental degradation and if they have a majority, then it is decided.

Grassroots democracy is one of the pillars of green philosophy. This means that greens can and will stick to our principles. If our participation in a decision is required, you can be certain of the position that we will take. It is up to the other participants to take responsibility for their own positions and not expect the greens to compromise, as it is our democratic right to not do so.

So your implication that greens unilaterally declare what does or doesn't happen is in complete ignorance of the democratic processes at work.

Lean and Green:

10 Aug 2012 3:19:35pm

I do.

But what right do we have to hand our children's children a tip face just because one group feels they do not play a role in the unilateral efforts to protect this planet from industry overburden and pollution Jonno? This has to be a one in all in thing.

Doug of Armidale:

Mark O:

10 Aug 2012 10:58:47am

I think it was Paul Keating that said (sic) " the environmental movement wouldn't know a win if it punched them in the mouth". ie - they can never get enough and any concession to them lies just short of what they want.

This smack of the same. They will be lawful and inclusive if it suits their purpose, but the moment the lawful process decides against them, they happily step outside the process and seek to deny the rights of the majority.

In short - they act as toddlers throwing a tantrum every time they cannot get their way. This is unacceptable in a mature society, which is environmentally concious compared to many countires and which operates under the rule of law.

If they are really concerned, go sort out the environmental issues in Russia, India etc etc. Make a real difference, not take on the soft targets.

maus:

10 Aug 2012 3:35:04pm

Protestors can fly to Melbourne, Londan etc fo ra G20 meeting but environmentalists do not go enmass to China or Turkey for instance to protest the environment. Methinks they only go where there are liberal government that follow the fairly weak laws of the country. Bob and Co could do a lot more concerning the environment in China for instance but i dont think they would like the jails over there. Better to vent and rage in the safety of a nice country like Australia.

Probably should hold the G20 meeting in a place like the Sudan or even China and see how many rioters there are.

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 11:00:57am

Green ideology is fundamentally misanthropic, I suspect because there is a deep-rooted philosophical contradiction at its heart that cannot decide whether humans are just another species of animal and thus part of the natural environment, or a species apart and separate from nature.

The ramifications of both these beliefs are far-reaching.

Green ideology is also profoundly utopian, and utopians invariably hold actual human beings in contempt, unreliable and wilful materials to be beaten into shape on the anvil of ideological purity.

The best the Jabirr Jabirr people can hope for from the Greens, as they already seem to realise, is to be patronisingly treated as human museum exhibits.

As real, live human beings with aspirations to better their lot, they might as well not exist in the Green imagination.

notinventedhere:

10 Aug 2012 11:18:53am

What a fascinating, boot stomping view of this site. It's main importance is scientific: these are real, genuine, dinosaur footprints that have been there for millions and millions of years. And we want to put a hulking great gas plant in the middle of them?

The Aboriginal interest in this case is less important that the common heritage of humanity. This is not a few frogs in a swamp. This is one of the most remarkable things on the planet - I have been there and seen them - and we are destroying it for a few years of income.

There is no engineering reason that the project could not spend a few percent more and build a floating plant, like they are planning for the Timor gap gas fields. There is no absolute commercial imperative - the gas is not under the ground there.

It will go down in history as one of the long run of environmental disasters in WA in the name of greed. Build the gas plant, just float it.

It is just another form of racism to say that because they are Aboriginal, their decisions are always correct.

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 11:59:14am

I'm not sure what your comment has to do with mine, but with regard to the dinosaur footprints, I agree that it is imperative that they be preserved.

However, I must ask - how extensive are the footprints? From my (admittedly limited and long ago) experience on digs, I would very much doubt that there are dinosaur footprints scattered the breadth and width of the entire site.

With this in mind, surely it is entirely feasible to build the plant with a caveat that the footprints are protected?

Stan:

10 Aug 2012 3:40:02pm

Clownfish

There are dinosaur prints in numerous places up this part of the coast and the JPP ones are not the best. The proposed development avoids the shore platform where they are located anyway so this is really a non-issue.Oh and by the way the only reason these prints are seen at all is that they are on the shore platform which is exposed to the elements and they are naturally eroding and in a relatively short period will be gone.

sigh:

10 Aug 2012 1:45:04pm

I'm afraid that not many will look back with regret. Greed and material stuff is the way now. We have the ability to learn from past mistakes but we don't.Another civilisation about to collapse.The planet will keep going - its got its own lifespan, determined by the universe (not humans).

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 2:51:32pm

Because humans have never wanted 'material stuff' before ...

But, indeed many people don't learn from past mistakes. From Tertullian to Malthus, Paul Ehrlich and Tim Flannery, the false prophets of eco-doom have been spewing forth their Jeremiads to a gullible audience who are always ready to believe that the world is about to come to an end.

Fiona:

10 Aug 2012 11:42:10am

I don't disagree with much of this, but we shouldn't lose sight of the big picture. As humans, we only have this planet to live on. Our cutting down forests, digging up everything, burning fossil fuel, growing the human population does have an effect. I doubt anyone would deny this. So we do have to take things into consideration other than 'I want to better my lot'. I think there is logic in the concept that we are custodians for the future generations.

The idea of endless growth and consumption is also idealogical rubbish (unless we get off the planet very quickly) as much as extreme green ideology. In the modern Western world the idea of how to 'better your lot' is almost completely tied to having more and more stuff. The balance is skewed I think. Once a person meets their basic needs of food, shelter, safety, health, can they get more and more 'happier' just by having more and more stuff ?.

My house doesn't have a butlers pantry, or cinema room, or en-suite, or 'outdoor entertainment area', will having those things make me happier ?, many people seem to think so. I think it's an illusion.

Mr Zeitgeist:

bev:

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 3:13:10pm

However, I daresay your house, even sans Butler Pantry, makes you a lot happier than if you were living in a run-down shack in a remote community where there is precious little infrastracture and services and all-but zero economic opportunity to improve your lot.

Wanting others to have the opportunity to achieve the same, decent standard of living as yourself is not the same as being 'completely tied to having more and more stuff'.

Fiona:

Dogbert:

10 Aug 2012 4:00:01pm

I believe it is a fairly well-known fact that if everyone on Earth had what we have in Australia, then we would need something like 2.5-3 Earths worth of resources. I agree entirely that everyone should have the access to the same stuff, but unfortunately the direction that we necessarily must go in to achieve that is to spread the stuff around, not to get more stuff (because there isn't any). I know this is widely known, but for some reason people tend to dismiss it when it is brought up. I don't know why, because it seems to be a point of considerable practical importance.

maus:

mustafa gotten:

10 Aug 2012 2:14:56pm

As usual, Clownfish, your comments are really about denigrating the Greens at every opportunity.

The Greens are not "fundamentally misanthropic" - is their support for refugees, for gay marriage, for women's rights, for Aboriginal rights, for the poor, for farmers fighting against coal seam gas companies - are these indicative of misanthropy?

Nor are the Greens utopian. They agreed to a carbon policy that is a long way from their wishes, but did it in the interests of moving forward.

The Greens have long supported opportunities for indigenous people to "better their lot," advocating the establishment of employment opportunities within indigenous communities, fighting Labor when they wanted to end the CDEP, which was not a favourite of the Greens, but it was better than nothing.

Just because the Greens have come out in favour of the environment, they're misanthropic? They're an environmental party, not simply a feel good party. If they'd come in support of the project just because it's on indigenous land, they'd be labelled hypocrites.

Indeed, what is noticeable amongs critics of the Greens is that they have some romantic vision of Indigenous people, as if Indigenous people could never do anything which might damage the environment.!

The Greens will advocate for the environment, regardless of colour or creed - if it were otherwise, they wouldn't be the Greens.

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 4:16:53pm

There is the difference between some of the Greens' policies, many of which pander to their members' unreflective right-on-ness, and their underlying political philosophy. Indeed, as we see, some Greens policies are logically incompatible.

So, while they may self-righteously espouse warm'n'fuzzy 'support for refugees, for gay marriage ...' etc., when push comes to ideological shove, it's real, live people who are always the losers. Whales will trump Aborigines, trees come before the lives of those surrounded by them.

When it comes down to it, Green ideology privileges 'the environment' above humans. One doesn't have to engage with even mainstream Greens for very long before hearing humans described as 'parasites', 'cancer', etc., and an oft-expressed desire to reduce our specie's numbers dramatically and quickly.

Which is indeed misanthropic.

Again, I use the word utopian with regard to the Greens' fundamental philosophy. Green ideology is rooted in Marxism (and many prominent Greens in old-school Communism), which is a profoundly utopian philosophy.

The horrific consequences for real, live, messy humanity forced to try to conform to the dictates of utopian ideology were amply demonstrated throughout the 20th Century.

As for alleged 'romanticism', I can't see where I've expressed anything like it. Like Jared Diamond, I'm well aware that 'tribal people often make war and damage their environment'.

I simply contend that Aboriginal people are people like any other, with the same rights and aspirations - and good luck to them.

But I'm disappointed that you didn't choose to engage on the fundamental question of humanity's place in the environment.

mustafa gotten:

10 Aug 2012 4:44:53pm

No, Clownfish, Green ideology is not rooted in Marxism - you really need to go back to medieval philosophies of the pastoral and to 19th century American transcendentalism to understand the Greens - not that I think you are interested in understanding the Greens, just disparaging them. Greens' ideology is informed by Marxism, but really, so is just about any ideology left of Margaret Thatcher!

And the Greens do not privilege the environment - they privilege the long term. That's not misogynist - just intelligent.

Clownfish:

10 Aug 2012 6:25:53pm

The 'pastoral' 'philosophies' you refer to are, in the Greens' case, actually rooted in the 19th century German Romanticism (which, interestingly, is the common 'soil', pardon the pun, from which the Nazis sprung; it's likewise no accident that the early British organic movement had intimate ties with the British Union of Fascists ... but I digress), which was a backlash against the Enlightenment.

It is no accident that Clive Hamilton referred to the Greens as the 'party of Plato'. The Greens, through Marx and Hegel, hearken back to utopian ideologies of Plato. Modern readers would recognise in 'The State' the similar anti-rationalist ideologies that ultimately led, via Socialism, to Fascism.

Thus Hamilston spoke truer than he knew or probably intended.

Mostly the Greens have inherited from Marx their utopian worldview that assumes that by changing the material condition of society - hence, carbon taxes, fat taxes and every other social engineering policy in the Greens' policy toolbox - they will remake humans in the perfect form of ideological purity.

But, as history has repeatedly shown, humans are not perfect. It is when imperfect humans collide with Marxist ideological purity that horrors occur.

Anthony:

10 Aug 2012 11:04:06am

Remember the days when Bob Brown and the Greens campaigned to save rainforest or wetlands from development. Today they are campaigning to save a few square miles of desert, even if it means disadvantaging indigenous Australians and the hurting the rest of the Australian economy.

Alpo:

10 Aug 2012 11:07:39am

We don't just live on the land, we also live off the land. That's unavoidable, it's a fact of life and ignoring it is political madness. For any specific case of industrial intervention on the land, due process must be followed according to the law. Environmental, native ownership issues and so forth must be addressed according to the law. Once all the legally relevant parties have agreed, and the law is upheld after following due process then the project must go on.... Dinosaur footprints can/must be removed and saved. Rare species can/must be protected (by properly planned relocation if need be). There is no need to wage war on each other every step of the way ... We all have got a nice little brain, let's make good use of it!

Joe:

"and the law is upheld after following due process then the project must go on"

Not necessarily.

We must not forget that there is a very, very important group in this decision and that is the investors which are led by Woodside.

It is their money and they may still choose to invest their money elsewhere for a variety of reasons.

Some of these reasons may be that they don't want to get bogged down in protracted on going court proceedings, they may decide that this investment no longer remains the best investment return for their money, they may not want to invest their money in a project where the traditional owners may change their mind on supporting the project, they may not want to invest their money in a project which may damage their name, they may not want to invest their money in a project which develops significant international environmental opposition and the list goes on.

Woodside and their position still needs to be respected. It is not just about the traditional owners.

Alpo:

10 Aug 2012 2:56:49pm

I fully agree with you, Joe. Shareholders must have security that once all hurdles are cleared there will be certainty, from then on, that their investment is not going to go to the dogs because of legal challenges. I am not expert in the legal issues in this area, so I can only talk in terms of general principles. But it is quite clear that nobody is ever going to invest a cent when the level of uncertainty is just unacceptable. This is one issues that requires greater development in the Greens' view of their political role in this country.

mustafa gotten:

10 Aug 2012 11:08:40am

You raise a very important issue here, but it's one which every political party has faced at some stage.

Labor, Liberal and the Greens all want Aboriginal communities to succeed - remember visionaries like Fred Chaney and Robert Tickner? But that doesn't mean that Aboriginal groups and the major parties are bedfellows - far from it. And it's about time we got over the idea that all Aboriginal groups think the same - they are just as riven as any other group of people.

As the most progressive party, the Greens have long supported Aboriginal aspirations and fought against the structures which have worked against Aboriginal people. But they are not always going to be on the same side. Like the wild rivers debate in Qld, which also divided indigenous interests, there will be times when the Greens and indigenous groups part company.

Yes, it hurts the feelings on both sides. But it hurts the most because the Greens and Aboriginal groups have long had such a close relationship. It would be hypocritical for environmentalists to support this project just because Aboriginal people want it - it's about the environment, stupid.

Davoe:

10 Aug 2012 11:10:42am

I love it how the Mainstream media has suddenly come onto the aboriginal land rights bandwagon. They ignored it when they were campaigning against the Howard government's undermining of the Wik decision. But it's good for them to know the MSM is on their side... for the time being.

Kerry Firkikn:

10 Aug 2012 11:12:03am

I can understand that there are some who feel that if this gas plant does not go ahead they won't get any benefitsWhat makes it even sadder that even if it does go ahead they won't get anything at all just look at the Pilbra how may years they have been waiting

Paul W:

The Greens have always had a commitment to both the environment, social democracy, care for people, and sustainable economics.

http://greens.org.au/policies/

A quick scan of the policies web site will show its still the situation.

Aboriginal self determination has always been a clear policy for the Greens. Of course there is a tension when aboriginal people choose a course that is environmentally harmful.

Life is like that situations get thrown up to work through. Most Greens come from a background where education has been a given.

The third world situation of most aboriginal Australian's id due to white racism. For example the tolerance of intervention programs is a clear example of racism.

Targeting individuals for control measures instead of support for developing aboriginal culture and institutions to help alcohol, violence and other issue is blatant racism. The destruction of aboriginal institutions is a vicious attack on self determination.

Since aboriginal people are struggling for their survival it's to be expected that money can look good.

Red Stone:

10 Aug 2012 12:54:11pm

Intervention is not an act of racism. Not legally or morally. To let people continue along a path of destruction would be an act of ignorance or possibly at the higher end of the scale genocide come suicide.

I know the greens may wish to think that self determination is the way to go but when that self determination is dangerous it must be investigated and acted upon.

We do not need a generational continuance of non policy such as it is. I am sure that any child that is saved from the horrible effects we see now is indeed a child saved.

Maybe you green types can use your educations to come up with a plan rather than the great ignorance you continue to show towards Aboriginal people.

Self determination is not found at the bottom of another bottle of booze it is found in the concepts of social democracy, some thing you lot seem to fear.

Joe:

10 Aug 2012 11:41:21am

But let us not forget in the past where areas owned by Aboriginals have been opened up to development it has led to the wholesale marginalisation and cultural destruction for the Aboriginal people of that area. The Aboriginal people need to consider careful the risks and benefits of the development of the James Price Point Gas Hub. I do see that if it is carefully managed their will be significant benefits to the local people but we should not kid ourselves that at the same time there won't be significant challenges. As in anything in life, there will be some that are winners, there will some that do well and there will some that will be losers amongst the Aboriginal people.

In guiding my decision of whether to support this project at James Price Point, I won't so much make my own mind up as instead listen to what the traditional owners of the area want, the Jabir Jabir People & the Goolaraboolo People and also the Kimberley Land Council. These are the people that will be critical to my support. I'm not so naive to believe that all Aboriginal people will agree but if a significant majority agree then I will support the project.

On the environmental side, I don't think this Gas Plant is a major issue. It is a small area for the plant/hub and gas plants are very clean operations. Having said this I am strongly against opening up the Kimberley's to wholesale mining and industrialisation, like bauxite or iron ore mining as I believe these type of large scale mines and large scale industrialisation will be a major environmental problem for the Kimberleys.

Also we should not forget about Woodside and the their fellow investors. It is their money and quite rightly they want to see a return on their investment. They quite rightly have a very strong say on where they want to invest their money and this needs to be respected.

Finally we should not forget about the people of Western Australia and Australia whose resources are being developed. The best option for these is to see a new gas plant built in either the Kimberleys or Pilbara region. The idea of taking the gas to the existing plant at Karratha is a very, very bad option for WA and Australia because it will see large amounts of gas left in the ground. The North West shelf is faced with expensive, but still commercially viable, equipment investments to suck the remaining gas out of its depleting NW shelf fields as the pressure on these fields drops. It is in the interests of Australia and WA that these gas fields on the NW shelf are fully exploited and that their resources, ie gas is not left in the ground.

chalkie:

10 Aug 2012 11:45:18am

The Greens are not just a minority party - they are at heart fundamentally undemocratic.

They propose race-based political and cultural privelege for aborigines, advocating the "pursuit of the conclusion of a multilateral convention based on the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and enact its provisions into Australian law." - which conceals the desire to pay ruinous compensation to 2% of the population and to hand effective political control to 2% of Australians for ever.

The Greens therfore propose to disenfranchise all non-indigenous people, to impose terrible financial costs onto those of the wrong race irrespective of personal action (or even the actions of ancestors) as part of their 'protection' of human rights.

Exaggeration? Not so. Let's look at the provisions of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Convention:

1. Ruinous compensation, impoverishing all bar Aborigines: section 2 says that unless Aborigines agree to something less than complete restitution, they are entitiled to title over the entire Australian landmass:

Article 28

Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, of a just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.

Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

2. Morover, given that almost any policy affects Aborigines in some way, any policy must get Aboriginal approval for every policy. This effectively constitutes a veto power:Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Also, Aborigines are to have a (paid) automonous political authority:

Art 4: Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Schools have to pay for aboriginal language tutors for every aboriignial kid in any class:

States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own

david r:

Jay:

10 Aug 2012 11:55:03am

I have no problem with certain Aboriginal leaders and communities saying they choose development over cultural and/or environmental integrity. Nor do I worry that conservationists and Aboriginal people dont share the same ideological world view (this has been on the wane for some time now so its certainly not new news). But I do not agree with the belief espoused by the proponents of this development that local Aboriginal people must agree to a large scale industrial development in order to benefit from it. If the James Price Point project goes ahead, it will create billions of dollars in revenue for both the WA and Commonwealth governments. And it will be used to shower gifts on middleclass families in Sydney, Melbourne as well as Perth. It will pay for hospitals and roads and education beyond the Kimberley. But no one in these cities is being asked to provide land and or consent to the project. Local Aboriginal people are being used and forced to make a decision that is unnecessary. Process the gas in the Pilbara and use the profits to address Indigenous disadvantage irrespective of where they reside. This would be the quickest way to stop all this nonsense.

Telling You:

10 Aug 2012 12:10:45pm

This article is a little disconcerting. For a start Wayne Bergman is no more than a mouth piece for the Barnett government. It is my understanding that the Barnett government issued an ultimatum on the whole project by the state government holding a gun to the traditional landowners when Barnett first threatened - then carried out aquisition by the state over James Price point.

It seemed that the traditional owners were pigeon holed in a position by Barnett of either take the money and sign the deal or walk away with nothing. Naturally those like Bergman who could see advantage in taking the "blood" money under the guide of aboriginal self determination ensued that a piece of paper agreeing to the Barnett governments request was duly signed by those representing "a'" particular group of traditional owners. Not all traditional owners were in agreeance.

Further more I agree with the environmentalists that this project will destroy the Kimberley coastline at James Price Point. There are facilities which can handle the shipping out of the LNG further south off the coast at Port Headland. This would achieve a win/win outcome except for the fact that the emperor of Western Australia has decreed James Price Point come hell of highwater.

Another negative of the James Price Point proposal (it is yet to get federal environmental approval) is that this facility will wreck the tourism and the jewel in the crown in the Kimberley - the town of Broome. It will devastate the locals and put an end to the wonderful tourism industry which has been built up over decades for the sake of short term industrialisation.

Budovski:

Just because a community can be brought off with a few trinkets, mirrors and blankets it doesn't mean that the project is somehow a good. It just means most people are corruptible.

Not every Aboriginal cares about the environment, many only care about lining their pockets. Take Noel Pearson for example. This guy has spent his life dining with mining executives and schmoozing various corporate bigwigs and still pretends he has some connection to his people or the land.

The James Price Point project is a joke, the process for approval has been fraudulent and the community has been paid off just like many indigenous communities have been paid off by colonial entities.

A better solution to improve Aboriginal communities would be to put a flat 1% tax on all minerals extracted and use that money to fund aboriginal education and anti alcohol initiatives.

Sadly, our corporations prefer to use trinkets because it costs them next to nothing...

chalkie:

10 Aug 2012 4:05:09pm

There is already an additional royalty for mining on aboriginal land that goes to the Aboriginal Benefit Account (in the NT, other states have equivalnets in some cases).

Northern Land COuncils get 30% of this directly. The rest is spent on Aboriginal-only programs at hte minister's discretion (with advice from Indigenous advisers). This is in addition to Federal and NT Aboriginal-specific programs.

Indigenous Australians already have, according to the Productivity Commission, about $40 000 per person per annum spent on services and direct payments: every one else gets about $20 000. The issue is not what is spent: the problem comes from the dismal returns on expenditure on a segment of our population that seems to display ever worse health, educational and other indices even as ever-greater expenditures are made. On a simple dollar earnt level, Indigenous Australians have one of the highest 'income' per capita averages on the planet - just that you wouldn't know it. Perhaps if direct payments were made inlieu of services then real self-determination might take place - funny, no ABoriginal leader has proposed sidelining themselves in this way.

dubious the third:

10 Aug 2012 1:04:54pm

The Originals of Australia have been denied their lands, their rights and opportunities. Some miners come along and offer them some deal so that they can get some services and opportunities. They are being wedged. By being offered a way out of their disadvantage. with no other options being offered, it's hardly Consent. It's coercive and forced agreement to what looks to be the lesser of the two options wrongly applied to their situation.

libertarian:

10 Aug 2012 1:05:28pm

People of the left are always hypocrites. The ideology can only be hypocritical if you think about it long enough. These kind of hypocrisies will be become increasingly apparent over time. The Greens also support a Government that gave money to a failing Aluminum Smelter. Aluminum is solidified electricity and produces more carbon per ton of product than any other industry. They are being paid to stay in business whilst my family wears the carbon tax with no compensation. Go figure. The Greens are the Australian Communist Party in disguise.

Clownfish:

Janet Rice:

10 Aug 2012 1:17:17pm

What this article doesn't touch on is the level of dispute within the Indigenous communities of the Kimberley about the gas hub development. Have a look at the website of the Goolarabooloo people http://www.goolarabooloo.org.au/, to see that they don't want to see the James Price Point development happen.

As others have noted there is no reason for the gas hub to be on land. There is a compromise possible here. It's not black and white, Black versus Green, development versus environment

JMJ:

10 Aug 2012 1:23:23pm

Ben, if the revised cost for the James Price Point project has increased by some 50% to $45 billion, then it becomes more attractive and economically viable to pipe the gas south to the existing North West Shelf project.

P Mohan:

10 Aug 2012 1:24:02pm

Firstly, it is NOT possible for ALL environmental groups and ALL Aboriginal groups to work together ALL the time. Where there are opportunities, both groups can come together and at times there is meant to be conflict.

You first STOP imposing the view that ALL Aboriginal people should think alike. Aboriginal people are just like everyone else, they are entitled to have diverse opinions. One group (Jabirr Jabirr) may support and another group (Goolarabooloo) may oppose the JPP gas project. On this occasion, the Greens are standing by the Goolarabooloo group. So what makes you write that Greens are at odds with Aboriginal people in general?

It is also a great mainstream lie you are perpetrating that majority of Aboriginal people have agreed to this project. I do read a lot of stuff from various Indigenous media websites from across Australia and they are all opposing this project. And you are quoting Kimberley Land Council to support your claim? If non-Indigenous Australians have any idea about Aboriginal land councils, they should know that land councils are dependant on govt. funding and are under great pressure to conform to the govt. views to get $$. Every single employee working for land councils are depending on govt. funding to keep their employment contract running. Under these circumstances it is not possible for them to oppose this JPP project.

jim:

Money with power, manipulation, common sense, political and editorial finesse , community concern and Earth science doesn't exist.

Politically aligning players and trying to force a major hinge of a minor point and happening of the matter to let it all hang in the air is distortion and molesting of the matter Ben Collins.

Shall we delve right into the matters, like how much corporate or political Aust actually cares about the environment or first peoples. Unless they are a lever or working a shovel for third of a wage, then they are family.

One side of the coin attempts are made to flourish whales , tourism, nature, but what is the use if piecemeal globally they are being eroded by corporate ,chemical and pollution and the illusion of their and our saving?

Aboriginal,environment and science has always been a good mix for the nation. They hear each other and that is where the debate is. For you to amplify slithers with your colours brings to mind someone's big moment, of big corporate newspaper adoration. A man of the world. But is it just Andrew Bolt blood for a divisive controversially angled topic?

What is any of it without the history of corporate, journalistic and political West Australia? Especially where environment and people are concerned.

P Mohan:

10 Aug 2012 1:24:34pm

Analysing Indigenous affairs over the last 5 to 6 years:

The Liberals brought the NT Intervention and now Labor wants to continue that for another 10 years. That the majority of Aboriginal people are opposed to this draconian legislation is no secret and Greens are the only party who are opposing the NT Intervention. In 2006, it was Bob Brown who advocated for Opal fuel roll out to curb petrol sniffing. Today, Greens are the only ones advocating for making opal fuel mandatory across service stations in the NT communities, the only ones calling for implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, the only ones opposing nuclear waste dump in Muckaty Station in NT and are the only party who are calling for Native Title Reforms to reverse the onus of proof so that Aboriginal people will benefit.

In fact, lot of people dont know, that it was the Greens who kept pushing for the national apology to Stolen Generations, which Kevin Rudd delivered in 2008 and even today, the Greens are the ones pushing for recognising Indigenous peoples in the constitution.

Compare this with Labor and Liberals and please fill me in on whats their achievement in Indigenous affairs in the last decade? Greens might be at odds with some, but not with ALL Aboriginal people.

VivA:

10 Aug 2012 1:56:53pm

The great Aboriginal artist Emily painted to keep the miners away. Once a developer sets sight on a place it's buggered. And they move on and repeat the process. And the buggered bits don't ever get fixed and any bits that they haven't grabbed will be got in the end.

brian:

10 Aug 2012 2:17:19pm

There is an irreconcilable difference between indigenous and green conceptions of space, land and the Australian landscape. For the first nations there is no wilderness, but for the greens, Aboriginal Australia is nothing but wilderness. What the greens call wilderness is the indigenous living room. At best, thoughtful greens manage to resolve this contradiction with paradisal notions of an ideal landscape ideally managed. At worst, thoughtless greens tend to see indigenous Australians as cute natural creatures that are just a little bit dangerous, like kangaroos and koalas. The problem, and the challenge, is to see Australia as an already inhabited country before the European arrival, in a way that fully takes into account those peoples' humanity and world-view. To do that, of course, would lead to a treaty, which we have been avoiding all along.

Marc B:

10 Aug 2012 2:26:52pm

The author notes that "More and more in places like Broome where black and green overlap, environmentalists will be faced with the reality that Aboriginal people have as diverse views as any other race"

kbkim:

10 Aug 2012 2:31:45pm

All of a sudden the majority of Jabirr Jabirr voted in favour of the gas plant.For people who don't live in Broome or the Kimberley you should know this is a lie.

The KLC,under Bergman,saw to it only a fraction of the Jabirr Jabirr had their papers done before the vote,less than 20%.When people who were elegible to vote turned up on the day,they were turned away by pro gas people and told,"you are not on the list,you can't come in."

The KLC also changed the rules in the days before the vote,yes this was no doubt legal but hardly fair,a "no show" had always been counted as a no vote,that was changed to "no show" not counted.Also they changed the voting age from 18 to 15 and paid kids they had bussed in for the vote to vote in favour of the gas plant.

All this was discussed by Mitch Torres and Wayne Bergman on geoff Hutchinson's morning radio show for all to hear.

The author of this piece,Ben Collins,is well aware of this,so I can only asume he is supporting Woodside's case.

Righto:

Umm, wait a second, the Aboriginal community had no legal right to say no to the proposal when this "majority vote" happened, right? (If I am wrong on that, happy to be corrected).

Meaning that, given that they knew that the WA Government would allow the project anyway, their choice was to either say a futile "no" and get nothing, or make an agreement to get at least some benefits out of a project that would go ahead no matter what.

How on Earth can you say that the majority of Aboriginal people supported the project in such a situation?

More so, how on Earth can a ABC reporter not at least raise this basic point?

kbkim:

10 Aug 2012 5:09:31pm

"...how on earth can an ABC reporter not raise this basic point?"

In the lead up to the last Broome shire elections the ABC reported every slur and lie from Woodside,Barnett,whoever,as long as it was anti the protestors and people against this plant.BUT....any comments of same,or even lesser,language against these people was censored out under their "house rules.'

They slackened off once the elections were out the way.

This piece by Ben Collins is just another pro Woodside advert the Kimberley ABC are notorious for.

J.T.:

NomDePlume:

10 Aug 2012 4:50:06pm

The Greens have never been big on democracy. They will always prefence the scenary over people and when they don't get their way, they will try to use any method, fair or foul to stop development. Aborigines were always just means to that end.

Ravensclaw:

10 Aug 2012 6:29:54pm

This is a good case study of why the Greens are anti development, and oppose social justice and prosperity for (aboriginal and non aboriginal) Australians.

The Kimberley region is about 3 times the size of Great Britain and has less than .01% of the population of Great Britain. The environmental impact of this pipeline would not be much different to building a road. So opposing this pipeline is not much of an environmental concern.

You really have to loath this country, its people and prosperity to oppose this pipeline.

Let the watermelon Greens know next election how stupid their opposition to this gas pipeline actually is. Don't vote Green!